I'm going to say that California will be a less than 10 point loss for McCain.

And what exactly makes you say that? I can almost assure you Ventura,Orange and San Diego counties will vote in higher numbers for Obama than Kerry. Obama probably does better in la and the bay area but the places to watch will be the central valley and the Inland Empire. If he can do better here Obama could crack 57 but that seems to be his ceiling. I think most likely Obama wins by 12-15 points but watch out for the IE, it could deliver Obama a bigger margin.

It would be funny as hell if McCain stole the state, but that's not going to happen short of some kind of major disaster in San Francisco. I think Phknrocket is right and that it will be a single-digit victory for the dems. Heck, it was a single-digit victory for Kerry in 2004, which was an improvement over the 2000 election.

Logged

Attention bloggers: Join SeededBuzz and gain access to thousands of new readers. Simply paste a link and summary of your article for community members to link back to, drawing more activity to your site. Membership is FREE!

California will not be a 15% victory for Obama unless he wins in a landslide. Honestly, this state is not as blue as a lot of people think it is on this forum. Why would Republican strongholds like Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties have a heavy Obama turnout? Why is that an argument that everyone uses. "Oh well turnout will be heavy for Obama in _____ county!!!"

There is no basis for your arguments. Stop playing this guessing game!

California will not be a 15% victory for Obama unless he wins in a landslide. Honestly, this state is not as blue as a lot of people think it is on this forum. Why would Republican strongholds like Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties have a heavy Obama turnout? Why is that an argument that everyone uses. "Oh well turnout will be heavy for Obama in _____ county!!!"

There is no basis for your arguments. Stop playing this guessing game!

California will not be a 15% victory for Obama unless he wins in a landslide. Honestly, this state is not as blue as a lot of people think it is on this forum. Why would Republican strongholds like Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties have a heavy Obama turnout? Why is that an argument that everyone uses. "Oh well turnout will be heavy for Obama in _____ county!!!"

There is no basis for your arguments. Stop playing this guessing game!

The demographics are good for Obama in those counties and that is why I say he will improve the margins in those states compared to 2004. The reason I say it is doubtful Obama improves margins in the Inland Empire is because of its demographics. Now I am basing these numbers of a very slight Obama win in which case California would give Obama a margin of say around 12-13%.

What people forget about California is that the mosdt important fact about this state is not veter registration or demographics or ideology or the economy.

The most important fact about this state is its sheer size. We have nearly double the population of New York. Its amazing how often this gets forgotten.

Because of the size of the state there is tremendous inertia that favors Democrats. Democrats clearly have an advantage here in generic terms of maybe 8% or so in most years. What I mean bythat is that if everyone in state showed up to vote and knew nothing about the two candidates except their party affiliation the Democrat would win by 8% or so. This year, the Democrat would win by more than that because the year will not be a good one for Republicans.

In order to break through this inertia that favors Democrats, you must spend a massive sum of money to advertise in huge, expensive media markets. If a Republican cannot advertise himself as an individual who is compelling to voters he cannot win here. He will be no more compelling than his party affiliation, which is to say he will not be very compelling at all.

If John McCain had Bush's or Obama's fundraising prowess and this were not such a Democratic year, he could win California. He does well among latinos, suburbanites, and independents (The three most important groups for California Republicans to win). But he simply does not have the money required to run competitively here, and even if he did, this is such a Democratic year that even a herculean effort would be unlikely to win California.

What people forget about California is that the mosdt important fact about this state is not veter registration or demographics or ideology or the economy.

The most important fact about this state is its sheer size. We have nearly double the population of New York. Its amazing how often this gets forgotten.

Because of the size of the state there is tremendous inertia that favors Democrats. Democrats clearly have an advantage here in generic terms of maybe 8% or so in most years. What I mean bythat is that if everyone in state showed up to vote and knew nothing about the two candidates except their party affiliation the Democrat would win by 8% or so. This year, the Democrat would win by more than that because the year will not be a good one for Republicans.

In order to break through this inertia that favors Democrats, you must spend a massive sum of money to advertise in huge, expensive media markets. If a Republican cannot advertise himself as an individual who is compelling to voters he cannot win here. He will be no more compelling than his party affiliation, which is to say he will not be very compelling at all.

If John McCain had Bush's or Obama's fundraising prowess and this were not such a Democratic year, he could win California. He does well among latinos, suburbanites, and independents (The three most important groups for California Republicans to win). But he simply does not have the money required to run competitively here, and even if he did, this is such a Democratic year that even a herculean effort would be unlikely to win California.

Yeah I agree Mccain could win California if he took some socially liberal position and the republicans had a good year. But to the best of my knowledge Mccain has not taken any socially liberal position and this is not a good year for republicans. Plus Obama is a good candidate for California as he maximizes his vote amongst the affluent areas here in southern california. But Mccain is strong with hispanics which could get him a victory yet i am guessing after the whole immigration issue, hispanics arent really itching to vote republican.

What people forget about California is that the mosdt important fact about this state is not veter registration or demographics or ideology or the economy.

The most important fact about this state is its sheer size. We have nearly double the population of New York. Its amazing how often this gets forgotten.

Because of the size of the state there is tremendous inertia that favors Democrats. Democrats clearly have an advantage here in generic terms of maybe 8% or so in most years. What I mean bythat is that if everyone in state showed up to vote and knew nothing about the two candidates except their party affiliation the Democrat would win by 8% or so. This year, the Democrat would win by more than that because the year will not be a good one for Republicans.

In order to break through this inertia that favors Democrats, you must spend a massive sum of money to advertise in huge, expensive media markets. If a Republican cannot advertise himself as an individual who is compelling to voters he cannot win here. He will be no more compelling than his party affiliation, which is to say he will not be very compelling at all.

If John McCain had Bush's or Obama's fundraising prowess and this were not such a Democratic year, he could win California. He does well among latinos, suburbanites, and independents (The three most important groups for California Republicans to win). But he simply does not have the money required to run competitively here, and even if he did, this is such a Democratic year that even a herculean effort would be unlikely to win California.

Yeah I agree Mccain could win California if he took some socially liberal position and the republicans had a good year. But to the best of my knowledge Mccain has not taken any socially liberal position and this is not a good year for republicans. Plus Obama is a good candidate for California as he maximizes his vote amongst the affluent areas here in southern california. But Mccain is strong with hispanics which could get him a victory yet i am guessing after the whole immigration issue, hispanics arent really itching to vote republican.

I don't agree McCain would need to move left on social issues to win California in a normal year. He is already left of the GOP on gay marriage and the environment, and he does not emphasize things like abortion and guns.

I also disagree that Obama is very well suited to California. He has little appeal among upper class whites thanks to his ceaseless promise of higher taxes. I suspect Obama will underperform in the south and over perform in the north. Latinos have shown tremendous resistance to voting for Obama and a Democrat can't win California without a large majority of them. Obama is not an ideal California candidate. This is, after all, the state that gave us the term "Bradley effect".

John, I think you're projecting the primary to the General election in a wrongheaded way re: Latinos. Even considering the Latino protest shift, national polling has Obama doing essentially as well among Latinos as John Kerry did. The GOP has not exactly endeared themselves to the Hispanic voting base in four years. McCain's moderate stance on immigration will help, but I doubt Obama will perform much worse among Latinos than Kerry.

Taxes were an issue levied against Kerry too, and with little success. Invariably, Obama's best group that Clinton does not win tend to be affluent, well-educated males. He's polling better among them than Clinton by a good deal, and better than Kerry too.

I suppose he could collapse, but I'm always skeptical of "once they know what he's really like..." arguments.

What people forget about California is that the mosdt important fact about this state is not veter registration or demographics or ideology or the economy.

The most important fact about this state is its sheer size. We have nearly double the population of New York. Its amazing how often this gets forgotten.

Because of the size of the state there is tremendous inertia that favors Democrats. Democrats clearly have an advantage here in generic terms of maybe 8% or so in most years. What I mean bythat is that if everyone in state showed up to vote and knew nothing about the two candidates except their party affiliation the Democrat would win by 8% or so. This year, the Democrat would win by more than that because the year will not be a good one for Republicans.

In order to break through this inertia that favors Democrats, you must spend a massive sum of money to advertise in huge, expensive media markets. If a Republican cannot advertise himself as an individual who is compelling to voters he cannot win here. He will be no more compelling than his party affiliation, which is to say he will not be very compelling at all.

If John McCain had Bush's or Obama's fundraising prowess and this were not such a Democratic year, he could win California. He does well among latinos, suburbanites, and independents (The three most important groups for California Republicans to win). But he simply does not have the money required to run competitively here, and even if he did, this is such a Democratic year that even a herculean effort would be unlikely to win California.

Yeah I agree Mccain could win California if he took some socially liberal position and the republicans had a good year. But to the best of my knowledge Mccain has not taken any socially liberal position and this is not a good year for republicans. Plus Obama is a good candidate for California as he maximizes his vote amongst the affluent areas here in southern california. But Mccain is strong with hispanics which could get him a victory yet i am guessing after the whole immigration issue, hispanics arent really itching to vote republican.

I don't agree McCain would need to move left on social issues to win California in a normal year. He is already left of the GOP on gay marriage and the environment, and he does not emphasize things like abortion and guns.

I also disagree that Obama is very well suited to California. He has little appeal among upper class whites thanks to his ceaseless promise of higher taxes. I suspect Obama will underperform in the south and over perform in the north. Latinos have shown tremendous resistance to voting for Obama and a Democrat can't win California without a large majority of them. Obama is not an ideal California candidate. This is, after all, the state that gave us the term "Bradley effect".

I agree. I do not believe he will get all of Clinton's Hispanics when he clinches the nomination. People tend to forget that they are not a homogeneous voting block like the blacks. McCain is the perfect Republican to appeal to Republicans in southern California in San Diego and Orange counties. He's already said that he wouldn't mind gay marriage and never talks about abortion. I don't know what else he needs to soften his stance on. I happen to believe he'll do well in California, as Obama does not fit the state as well as many people think.

John, I think you're projecting the primary to the General election in a wrongheaded way re: Latinos. Even considering the Latino protest shift, national polling has Obama doing essentially as well among Latinos as John Kerry did.

If only Obama is doing as well among latinos as Kerry did, that's a huge problem for him. After all, John Kerry lost in 2004. Obama has to do better than Kerry if he wants to win Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, or Colorado.

The GOP has not exactly endeared themselves to the Hispanic voting base in four years. McCain's moderate stance on immigration will help, but I doubt Obama will perform much worse among Latinos than Kerry.

Again, Obama can't simply do as well as Kerry, he must find some group he can do better among than Kerry.

And when you say Obama is doing about as well as Kerry, do you mean the 55-44 win Kerry got in the exit polls or do you mean the 61-38 margin most analysts think he actually recieved? There's a big difference. If Obama is only polling about where Kerry did in those unweighted exits, congratulations Democrats, you just lost the election. For your sake, he better be close to the 20+ point margin the revised numbers showed.

Taxes were an issue levied against Kerry too, and with little success. Invariably, Obama's best group that Clinton does not win tend to be affluent, well-educated males. He's polling better among them than Clinton by a good deal, and better than Kerry too.

Obama is doing well among affluent well educated Democrats. I don't dispute that. But that is very different from sbane's claim that Obama will do well among rich white people in Orange County.

I suppose he could collapse, but I'm always skeptical of "once they know what he's really like..." arguments.

I'm not making a "once they really get to know him" argument. Voters in California already know Obama and McCain pretty well. And Obama is only ahead by 7% in an exceddingly Democratic year.

And remember, Obama never does as well when people actually vote as the polls say he will. In California, the RCP average had Obama up by 1.2% on election day. He lost by 9.6%. That's means Obama did 10.8% worse when people voted than he did when they answered the polls. If that happens in November, there are going to be a great many nasty surprises for Demcorats.

Again, I'm not saying McCain can win California. I've said he doesn't have the money and the atmosphere is too poisonous for Republicans, even though I think McCain could have won California in, say, 2000 or 2004. What I'm saying is that Demcorat are about to nominate a horrible, horrible candidate.

It's a problem for him, but hardly crippling. Those are still heavily white states electorally; Colorado was 92% non-Hispanic in 2004, Nevada was 90%, and New Mexico was 68%. And New Mexican Latinos are oftentimes quite different from Latinos in other states, but that's beside the point.

Clearly, he is polling ahead more often than not in all three of the latter states, so he is evidently doing fine among someone. Taking polls to project a weakness among a certain group in a state, and then ignoring the actual polls from that state, doesn't make much sense This is even considering that Hispanics are probably substantially more likely to be Clinton supporters, and thus make protest votes in polls. So, being up in most polls out of Colorado now hardly spells "trouble."

Moreover, the exit polls are still types of polls. If Kerry underpolled among Hispanics, and the exit polls were adjusted to his final margin of loss, obviously he overpolled among some other group. So, if Obama was polling identically to the exit poll results, he'd be doing worse among Hispanics than Kerry did but better among another group (wealthy whites, maybe?)

I'm not making a "once they really get to know him" argument. Voters in California already know Obama and McCain pretty well. And Obama is only ahead by 7% in an exceddingly Democratic year.

We haven't had many polls yet, and it's early, so I'm hesitant to project. Earlier SUSA polls had him as far up as 27 points (February), and - understandably considering they tend to poll after major news events - it's swung around. Could California swing toward McCain? Quite possibly. He's a good candidate for a state like California. The rest of your arguments I find questionable. So, on to those...

And remember, Obama never does as well when people actually vote as the polls say he will. In California, the RCP average had Obama up by 1.2% on election day. He lost by 9.6%. That's means Obama did 10.8% worse when people voted than he did when they answered the polls. If that happens in November, there are going to be a great many nasty surprises for Demcorats.

You're incorrect on the first count. Mr. Morden or someone made a nifty chart. There are states where he overperforms, and ones where he underperforms. Alabama (hilariously) comes to mind. The polls averaged out to a tie; he won by 14. You're thinking leaked exit polls, in which case you'd be right.

SurveyUSA's final poll had Clinton up 10 in California anyway, and the RCP numbers were polluted by: 1) Zogby's hilarious Obama +14 poll; 2) Suffolk, a bad university poll; 3) Rasmussen, who did not handle early voters correctly and admitted it. No one who was reading the polls with any real attention would have trusted the RCP average. Besides, Obama did do much better on election-day voters than early voters. Remember when the results came in? He flipped some counties that were nearly 3:2 in early voting when election-day results came in. That phenomenon was certainly in effect in the polling.

Lets talk for a moment about the California Democratic primary polls. Obama in fact did outperform the polls. Lets exclude Zogby. Field had Obama by 2. Suffolk had Obama by 1. Rasmussen had Obama by 1. Even if you disregard Zogby, Obama still did much better in the telephone polls than he did in the actual results.

This trend is duplicated in most of the states to vote. Obama underperformed the RCP average in Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. He underperformed in Massachussetts by 8%. He underperformed in New Hampshire by 10%. And of course, he underperformed in California despite your protests to the contrary.

As for hispanics, I think it is a bigger problem than you concede. Right now, Obama is well behind McCain in Florida, so much so that it seems there is little chance he will take the state in the fall. Given this, Obama must find his electoral votes somewhere else. He two ways of getting the needed electoral votes, assuming he holds all the Kerry states and adds Iowa (Adding Iowa seems a safer bet than holding all the Kerry states):

1) He can add Ohio. This would get him to 279. This is a problematic strategy because of Obama's deficiency with the white working class vote.2) He can add Colorado plus either Nevada or New Mexico. This would get him to 273. Unless he gets well over 60% of the latino vote, it will be hard for him to do this.

At some point it will have to sink in with Democrats: America is not electing a black man President in 2008. They will either come to understand this before their convention and save their party from blowing the election or they will wake up the day after the election with President McCain.

Lets talk for a moment about the California Democratic primary polls. Obama in fact did outperform the polls. Lets exclude Zogby. Field had Obama by 2. Suffolk had Obama by 1. Rasmussen had Obama by 1. Even if you disregard Zogby, Obama still did much better in the telephone polls than he did in the actual results.

This trend is duplicated in most of the states to vote. Obama underperformed the RCP average in Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. He underperformed in Massachussetts by 8%. He underperformed in New Hampshire by 10%. And of course, he underperformed in California despite your protests to the contrary.

Field also had 18% undecided, and 12% "other." Obama did underperform in California. However, as you are (for some reason) ignoring in your analysis, he did better on election day than beforehand. Suffolk is a university poll. Considering this, and the flaws in using the RCP average alone, he underperformed less than you were trying to demonstrate. That may seem rationalized in hindsight, but if you look back at my posts, I imagine I said that all before the primary too. I may be a crappy political analyst, but objectivity is not generally my weakpoint.

Ignoring the California thing, or the (fairly unsupported, IMHO) argument that Clinton receives most late-breakers in almost every state, let's look at your assertion. I suspected you were wrong, but I didn't know offhand, so I did the math, and your assertion is indeed incorrect.

First, I took the primary results and compared them to RCP averages. I excluded traditional caucuses because, obviously, that gives Obama an unfair advantage in my analysis. The RCP site is a little confusing, so I'm sorry if I missed any polls.

Outside of Super Tuesday, Obama was underestimated in margin in 8 of 11 states. Clinton was underestimated in three. In Obama's states, the average underestimation was 7.6 points. For Clinton, the average was 5.2. Overall, the error was a 4.1-point under-estimation of Obama's margin.

For Super Tuesday, I did the same analysis. There were eleven states that weren't caucuses and had enough polls to be included. Clinton was underestimated in 6 of 11; only 4 of these were by more than one point. However, the average Obama underestimation was significantly higher than the average Clinton estimation. Overall, the error was a 2.3-point under-estimation of Obama's margin.

In total, Obama was under-estimated in 14 of 22 states, and the average error was 3.2 points. You can check my math. It is correct.

1) He can add Ohio. This would get him to 279. This is a problematic strategy because of Obama's deficiency with the white working class vote.2) He can add Colorado plus either Nevada or New Mexico. This would get him to 273. Unless he gets well over 60% of the latino vote, it will be hard for him to do this.

Again, we have plenty of polls out of these states, so you can keep doing subgroup theorizing or actually read the polls. Unless, for some reason, you think that these polls are mis-handling Hispanics badly, I don't see any rational reason not to look at the polls.

My favorite statistical analysis site, FiveThirtyEight, has them all rigged up for you, with weights and everything. His conclusion is that Obama has a 60% chance in Colorado, 52% in New Mexico and 48% in Nevada. Clinton ranks 6%, 42% and 19%, respectively. You may disagree with his methodology (I think it's solid but you can take a look), but at least that will provide you with a link to the polls that show Obama performing well in the region.

Also, those rich, affluent white people in Orange and San Diego counties are Republicans, and after all the gaffes, I doubt they are going to be tempted to go out and vote for Obama over the very acceptable McCain.

Also, those rich, affluent white people in Orange and San Diego counties are Republicans, and after all the gaffes, I doubt they are going to be tempted to go out and vote for Obama over the very acceptable McCain.

There are plenty of affluent California voters who are Democrats. In 2004, the California exit poll had Kerry win those in $100,000+ households by four points. It's a sub-sample, and exit polls are often wrong, but wealthy people in CA aren't anywhere near as Republican on the whole as the suburbs of San Diego and Orange County you're talking about. Although, yes, there are some incredibly conservative suburbs in California that many people improperly ignore.

Again, the upper middle class tax issue (if I'm remembering correctly) was an issue Bush tried to levy against Kerry in 2004. It was one of the few things that didn't seem to stick at all relative to 2000. There's a reasonable argument that this was solely because of Bush, but that's a discussion for a different day.

Also, those rich, affluent white people in Orange and San Diego counties are Republicans, and after all the gaffes, I doubt they are going to be tempted to go out and vote for Obama over the very acceptable McCain.

Look I understand the affluent areas in Orange and San Diego counties vote heavily republican and they probably will this year too but I was talking about trends. I think Obama can trend those places towards the dem. Also Orange county is not as wealthy as you guys think( at least by california standards) and there are plenty off poorer Hispanic and Asian areas that just may vote dem in a troubled economic year. Same deal with San diego county, lots of poorer areas mixed in with the affluent. Many seem to think Obama will not do well amongst poorer voters here in California as compared to Clinton, but that is only a guess. Nothing in the polls points to that and I sincerely believe most hispanics and asians who voted for Clinton did not do so for racist reasons. Thus if Obama becomes a little more specific with policies he could win these voters over.

Also, those rich, affluent white people in Orange and San Diego counties are Republicans, and after all the gaffes, I doubt they are going to be tempted to go out and vote for Obama over the very acceptable McCain.

Look I understand the affluent areas in Orange and San Diego counties vote heavily republican and they probably will this year too but I was talking about trends. I think Obama can trend those places towards the dem. Also Orange county is not as wealthy as you guys think( at least by california standards) and there are plenty off poorer Hispanic and Asian areas that just may vote dem in a troubled economic year. Same deal with San diego county, lots of poorer areas mixed in with the affluent. Many seem to think Obama will not do well amongst poorer voters here in California as compared to Clinton, but that is only a guess. Nothing in the polls points to that and I sincerely believe most hispanics and asians who voted for Clinton did not do so for racist reasons. Thus if Obama becomes a little more specific with policies he could win these voters over.

Sorry but I have to bring this back...sh**t is too hilarious. The basic lesson of the thread being don't talk unless you know what you are talking about. The reason Bush did so well in southern california in 2004 was because he did extremely well among socal latinos and asians. It is important to understand the bolded part before you start spouting off about OC elections and nobody on this forum seemed to care. Thus the reason why everyone was expecting a double digit win for Mccain. I didn't quite predict the final score in OC and SD but I called the trends that would occur. LOL especially at John Ford, obviously he had no clue what he was talking about. It was pretty clear to me back in April socal was trending dem, regardless of the final election results.

Obama is doing well among affluent well educated Democrats. I don't dispute that. But that is very different from sbane's claim that Obama will do well among rich white people in Orange County.

Should have been a little more specific huh? Mccain held up just fine( at least trend wise) in uber rich white areas like Villa park, Newport beach, Coto de caza and inland, white areas of cities like Placentia, Yorba linda, Fullerton, Brea etc. I correctly predicted that Asians and especially latinos would swing hard towards Obama. That in itself accounts for a lot of Obama's swing. In addition highly educated whites swung hard towards Obama, accounting for the swing he saw in south OC and places like HB. Irvine had a ridiculous 23 point swing and all of it cannot be explained by UC Irvine. In addition there were big swings in Costa mesa, Tustin, HB, and most of those south OC cities but especially Laguna hills, Dana point, Lake Forest etc. The people who live here are rich, very well educated and usually working either in tech or finance. Techies love a candidate like Obama and that is evidenced by swings in south OC, Ventura and Santa Clara counties. In addition the financial industry went down the sh**tters and it is possible many in that field voted democrat for the first time.